John Smith of BizPac Review explains how members of Congress can take steps to rein in activist judges.

The whole concept of the rule of law becomes meaningless when courts can impose on the language whatever meaning they wish, or decide legal issues based on their personal preferences, disregarding the original meaning of the written word.

The legislative branch is and has been the branch closest to the people. The way the U.S. system works is that if someone wants to enact a law, they need to get a legislature to pass it.

A central idea when our Republic was founded was to divide political power among three branches of government. This made sure that too much power was not exercised by any one branch. The legislature’s job was to write the laws. The executive’s job was to carry out the laws. The judiciary’s job was to interpret laws when laws conflicted– their job was not to re-write law and not to make an end run around the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives. …

… To steer ourselves back on track with the U.S. Constitution, those in the legislative branch of government, who hold their positions by vote of the people, must reassert themselves and reign in judges who abuse their authority. This means using its confirmation authority to block the appointment of activist judges. It means stripping the American Bar Association of its special role in judicial selection. Congress should exercise its power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, put the courts back within their constitutional boundaries, and stop the expansion of litigation in the federal court system.